Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiBishop

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiBishop

There's too much pointless proliferation of the fauna pages. A WikiBishop edits "diagonally", apparently. What is that supposed to mean? We are told that they edit policy pages and show "ordinary WikiVillagers the right way to go", but what does being a bishop or a chess piece have to do with that? What is a "WikiVillager" anyhow? Aren't we all "ordinary" Wikipedians? This page is incoherent and unhelpful. Fences&Windows 16:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really don't see how editing policies is "diagonal". NotARealWord (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too inscrutable to be useful. Some of the other "fauna" essays may be excessive as well. Will Beback talk 23:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would prefer to see these spurious Wikipedia:Fauna redirected to Wikipedia:Fauna without an MfD being required. WikiBishop seems to be something facetious ("diagonal editing") made up by User:4 one day. It doesn't seem to have any identified examples, and so seems pointless. These spurious WikiFauna detract from the educational purpose of describing the existing recognised fauna. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that discussion generally on excessive spurious or facetious WikiFauna be directed to Wikipedia_talk:Fauna#Culling_spurious_or_facetious_fauna. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikifauna are created in fun. They're not disparaging, not a false article and draw the community together.
Oh, by the way, in chess bishops move diagonally, that's why the chess piece and that description*

KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 17:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't explain why editing policy is "diagonal". Is there such a thing as L-shaped editing? NotARealWord (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even on the Wikifauna navbox. Sumsum2010·T·C 02:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the page is changed so that it makes more sense (yes, bishops move diagonally, but you can't edit diagonally), and if it's de-stubbified. More content needed, since it doesn't really provide enough information to identify who a wikibishop actually is. Bramble claw x 22:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else, doesn't make sense. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. Nakon 04:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.